Most of his references are to landmark philosophers on media, i.e. Baudrillard and MacLuhan (they were both way ahead of their time, they lived in the era of TV but saw trends that would persist into the age of the net), which he does explicitly call out. Also, the title is a reference to one of Baudrillard's keystone works.
I will note aside that Simulacra and Simulation, of Matrix fame, is an absolute must-read if you're interested in social media/advertising/market of "signs".
The fourth stage is pure simulacrum, in which the simulacrum has no relationship to any reality whatsoever. Here, signs merely reflect other signs and any claim to reality on the part of images or signs is only of the order of other such claims. This is a regime of total equivalency, where cultural products need no longer even pretend to be real in a naïve sense, because the experiences of consumers' lives are so predominantly artificial that even claims to reality are expected to be phrased in artificial, "hyperreal" terms. Any naïve pretension to reality as such is perceived as bereft of critical self-awareness, and thus as oversentimental.
Your cell-phone, the name being coined by the TV/streaming series of the same name. Modern phones are literally black mirrors, which makes the metaphor all the more piquant.
What do you mean by digital vampires?
My interpretation: vampires avoid mirrors; people who avoid the black mirror, who don't participate in phone culture, might be argued to be less real than those subsumed by it, given how central phone culture and the net generally are to current existence. Think of the Amish. Are they "real"? Are they significant, do their concerns matter? Do you care about them at all? Do they have even the slightest impact on your life?
I think the implication in this entire post is, essentially, "social media has given us the Observer's Paradox From Hell: people practically self-modify themselves in response to the pressures of social media, becoming the mask to a frightening degree." No one can authentically present themselves; in fact, the authentic "self" may actually be suppressed in favor of the public persona. We can never approach the truth of things, especially of people, because everyone's eyes are on everyone else.
This all probably makes more sense if you're a fan of modern-day content creators (YouTube video makers, Twitch livestreamers, and VTubers especially). But all that being said, this is not a new problem at all and social media has simply upped the scale of this issue by one or two orders of magnitude.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Most of his references are to landmark philosophers on media, i.e. Baudrillard and MacLuhan (they were both way ahead of their time, they lived in the era of TV but saw trends that would persist into the age of the net), which he does explicitly call out. Also, the title is a reference to one of Baudrillard's keystone works.
I will note aside that Simulacra and Simulation, of Matrix fame, is an absolute must-read if you're interested in social media/advertising/market of "signs".
Sound familiar?
More options
Context Copy link
Your cell-phone, the name being coined by the TV/streaming series of the same name. Modern phones are literally black mirrors, which makes the metaphor all the more piquant.
My interpretation: vampires avoid mirrors; people who avoid the black mirror, who don't participate in phone culture, might be argued to be less real than those subsumed by it, given how central phone culture and the net generally are to current existence. Think of the Amish. Are they "real"? Are they significant, do their concerns matter? Do you care about them at all? Do they have even the slightest impact on your life?
More options
Context Copy link
I think the implication in this entire post is, essentially, "social media has given us the Observer's Paradox From Hell: people practically self-modify themselves in response to the pressures of social media, becoming the mask to a frightening degree." No one can authentically present themselves; in fact, the authentic "self" may actually be suppressed in favor of the public persona. We can never approach the truth of things, especially of people, because everyone's eyes are on everyone else.
This all probably makes more sense if you're a fan of modern-day content creators (YouTube video makers, Twitch livestreamers, and VTubers especially). But all that being said, this is not a new problem at all and social media has simply upped the scale of this issue by one or two orders of magnitude.
More options
Context Copy link